Ohio Beef Letter

Help Support Steer Planet:

red

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
7,850
Location
LaRue, Ohio
The Ohio Beef Extension puts out a weekly newsletter for cattle producers. Sometimes the articles cover a lot of topics. This week has one on warming cold calves. you can view this week's article at:
http://fairfield.osu.edu/ag/beef/beefJany31.html

Red
 

red

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
7,850
Location
LaRue, Ohio
it's a weekly thing, so I'll post each week's. Usually some good topics.
If anyone else has something similar in their state pass it on.
Red
 

Joe Boy

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2007
Messages
692
Red,
See if they have an article on dumb bull calves.  I had one born yesterday in the snow.  He followed his mother up to my pickup in pasture and I fed all the cows some breeder cubes.  I checked him this morning and he was trying to nurse the fifth teat.  He had never nursed.  I had to haul them 30 miles to my corrals.  She had gotten so large she would not go into my chute.  I had to put a halter on her and tie her up and put a kicker on her and help dumbo to find lunch.  He was dumber than a stump.  Tonight he is happy.
 

red

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
7,850
Location
LaRue, Ohio
Joe Boy said:
Red,
See if they have an article on dumb bull calves.  I had one born yesterday in the snow.  He followed his mother up to my pickup in pasture and I fed all the cows some breeder cubes.  I checked him this morning and he was trying to nurse the fifth teat.  He had never nursed.  I had to haul them 30 miles to my corrals.  She had gotten so large she would not go into my chute.  I had to put a halter on her and tie her up and put a kicker on her and help dumbo to find lunch.  He was dumber than a stump.  Tonight he is happy.

joe Boy, I believe DL always had a theory on big dumb calves. Check with her on it. Glad he's doing better.
Red
 

red

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
7,850
Location
LaRue, Ohio
Here is the entire newsletter for the week.

A Publication of:

OSU Extension - Fairfield County

831 College Ave., Suite D, Lancaster, OH 43130

and the OSU Extension BEEF Team

BEEF Cattle questions may be directed to the OSU Extension BEEF Team through Stephen Boyles or Stan Smith, Editor

You may subscribe to this weekly BEEF Cattle letter by sending a blank e-mail to [email protected]

Issue # 523

January 31, 2007

Animal Identification, a Reality or Simply a Perception - Kris Ringwall, Beef Specialist, NDSU Extension Service
There is a point of frustration in the beef industry. The U.S. currently produces healthy, wholesome beef, ready for American consumption and export to the world. Yet, as an industry, we produce our own barriers and then commence to trip over them in a seemingly endless array of missed opportunities.

There always should be something substantial and factual to what we read or spend much time listening to. The future really needs to be guided by facts that substantiate reality and are clearly different than positioned perception.

In the animal world, the problem is that there seems to be a strong desire to function in the world of perception, relegating the reality of animal identification and traceback to desired obscurity. One should ask how many times does the system need to fail.

As one grows up and before one really knows any facts, we all live in the assumption that all that is around us is real. The house we live in has been there forever, the food that appears at mealtime never ends and there always will be another cookie on the plate. At some point, this perception of the world gradually gives way to reality.

The reality is that the world around us can be harsh, not all people get along and bad things can happen. How long the animal world can avoid the realities of a very dynamic world and continue to live in the clouds of perception is not known. Perhaps a long time, but the point still remains, the current perceptions within the environment of the animal industry are tenacious, with various factions of the industry anchored to ideals and principles with very little connection to reality. The finger pointing is excessive, regardless of what segment of the industry currently is at the podium.

The latest bit of news regarding the questionable origin of cattle slaughtered last fall, but only noted this year, continues to call for some type of explanation. The reality is there is no answer.

The simple fact of the matter is that the U.S. beef industry has a very antiquated system of tags, paper and files, and limited people to even think about coming up with any sort of answer in any reasonable response time. The answer is even more distant, when one concludes that the typical animal marketed loses all identity at sale, may be commingled with several, if not hundreds, of other similar looking animals and then joins the ranks of the unknown.

And then there is concern when a problem arises. You said, no he said, no she said or maybe I think, but I don't really know which black calf it was. The reality is we don't know. The U.S. has a very wholesome, reputable beef industry, an industry that must be healthy as a whole, not as factions.

No one group can have cattle that are more wholesome than the next. No country can have cattle that are more wholesome than the next and no producer, company or cooperative can produce food that is more wholesome or healthy than the next. The bottom line is that people expect all food to be wholesome and contribute to their health and wellness. And so, the current squabble continues.

The irony is that the foundation of the beef industry prides itself on individualism. Yet individualism only survives along side responsibility. It is this responsibility, nested within cooperation, that needs to rise up and solve the task at hand.

The industry needs a modern, effective system of individual accountability, a system respectful of local concerns, but responsive to industry needs and consumer desires. Amongst the never-ending confusion, positioning and jostling, one can only hope some light will come to the podium.


Re-warming Methods for Cold-stressed Newborn Calves - Dr. Glenn Selk, Extension Cattle Specialist, Oklahoma State University

Recently an Oklahoma rancher called to tell of the success he had noticed in using a warm water bath to revive new born calves that had been severely cold stressed. A quick check of the scientific data on that subject bears out his observation. Canadian animal scientists compared methods of reviving hypothermic or cold stressed baby calves. Heat production and rectal temperature were measured in 19 newborn calves during hypothermia (cold stress) and recovery when four different means of assistance were provided. Hypothermia of 86o F rectal temperature was induced by immersion in cold water. Calves were rewarmed in a 68 to 77o F air environment where thermal assistance was provided by added thermal insulation or by supplemental heat from infrared lamps. Other calves were rewarmed by immersion in warm water (100oF), with or without a 40cc drench of 20% ethanol in water. Normal rectal temperatures before cold stress were 103 oF. The time required to regain normal body temperature from a rectal temperature of 86oF was longer for calves with added insulation and those exposed to heat lamps than for the calves in the warm water and warm water plus ethanol treatments (90 and 92 vs 59 and 63, respectively). During recovery, the calves rewarmed with the added insulation and heat lamps produced more heat metabolically than the calves rewarmed in warm water. Total heat production during recovery was nearly twice as great for the calves with added insulation, exposed to the heat lamps than for calves in warm water and in warm water plus an oral drench of ethanol, respectively. By immersion of hypothermic calves in warm (100 oF) water, normal body temperature was regained most rapidly and with minimal metabolic effort; no advantage was evident from oral administration of ethanol. When immersing these baby calves, do not forget to support the head above the water to avoid drowning the calf that you are trying to save.

Source: Robinson and Young. Univ. of Alberta. J. Anim. Sci., 1988.


Dried Distiller's Grains Can Help Produce More Beef - Kay Ledbetter, Texas A&M Extension Center

Supplemental feeding of dried distiller's grains to cattle can help produce more beef in grazing programs, a Texas Agricultural Experiment Station researcher said.

After a summer and fall feeding study done with both heifers and steers, Dr. Jim MacDonald, Experiment Station beef nutritionist, said he believes this by-product of ethanol production will be useful in more than just feedlot or dairy operations.

In the next few years, an additional 200 to 600 million gallons of ethanol are expected to be produced in the High Plains, MacDonald said. Production will utilize up to 214 million bushels of corn or sorghum and result in 1.71 million tons of distiller's grains.

"A majority will likely be utilized by feedyards and dairies, but due to the sheer increase in availability, there should be opportunities for cow/calf and stocker operations to use it as well," he said.

The most promising opportunity may be in the situation where lightweight calves are held for a couple of months before they go onto wheat, MacDonald said.

The summer grazing study using heifers averaging 600 pounds compared feeding 3 pounds of dried distiller's grain per head per day, or approximately 0.5 percent of the animal's body weight, to no supplement, MacDonald said.

Results showed an improvement in gain of a quarter of a pound per head per day over the control calves, he said.

In the fall dormant range study, steers weighing approximately 400 pounds were compared at unsupplemented, 1-pound, 2-pound and 3-pound per head per day rates, MacDonald said.

Gain improved from just over one-half pound per head per day at the 1-pound rate to 1.75 pound per head per day at the highest level of supplementation, he said.

"However, the effect was quadratic in that the more you supplemented, the incremental gain was lower," MacDonald said. "In other words, at the 1-pound rate, the efficiency of gain was about 50 percent, where at the highest rate, it was 40 percent."

During the summer trial, the efficiency was only about 10 percent, he said, because both sets of animals were eating well on grass and the supplementation did not make as big a difference.

"So supplementation is more efficient on dormant range, as you would expect," MacDonald said.

The economics of supplementing with distiller's grains will depend on the cost of the product compared to the value of gain, he said.

MacDonald paid $118 per ton for the distiller's grains, which equated to a $12.50 per head investment for $18.80 per head in return over the 63 days the heifers were fed.

As corn prices have risen over the past month or so, so has that of distiller's grain, he said. The same scenario now would have the producer paying $175 per ton, which would result in a $18.96 per head investment for a $16.20 per head return.

"Producers need to run the economics in their situation to see if it is a good fit," he said.

The 56-day fall trial, using the $175 per ton rate for the distiller's grains, resulted in at $16.33 per head investment at the highest level of supplementation, MacDonald said. That investment was worth $68.25 per head.

"The economics would say in the fall or winter scenario, producers will want to supplement at as high levels as possible," he said.

"And even though this research is conducted with stocker calves, I think there is opportunity for cow/calf producers to utilize the distiller's grains as well," MacDonald said. "The supplemental fat has shown to improve reproduction, as well as providing energy to maintain or improve body condition score."

However, potential dangers exist if animals are fed at extreme rates due to fat and sulfur content, he said. Excessive fat can reduce forage digestibility. Also, sulfur can tie up minerals such as copper, creating a deficiency. Excessive sulfur may cause polioencephalomalacia, also known as "brainers."

Producers who use distiller's grains need to be cognizant of all sulfur sources, including water, MacDonald said. If a producer is feeding distiller's grains high in sulfur and also have sulfur in their water, it could be enough to cause trouble.

The supplementation trials were only the first step in MacDonald's study, he said.

Comparisons of distiller's grains to more traditional supplementation and following the calves onto wheat pasture need to done, he said.

"I'm very much enthused about using distiller's grains to produce more beef on a fixed-land base," he said. "The caveat will be to see what previous supplementation does to subsequent wheat grazing gains. We'll have some data on that in the spring."

EDITOR's NOTE: Two opportunities in Ohio during February remain to learn about the use of DDGs in beef cattle rations during the series of OCA District meetings. "Ethanol By-products: What Can They Do for Your Operation" is presented by Dr. Francis Fluharty. Visit the OSU Beef Team web calendar for a complete listing of these and other beef cattle management meetings.

Forage Focus: Ohio Forage and Grassland Council Conference

The 2007 Ohio Forage and Grassland Council annual meeting and conference will be held on Friday, February 9 at the Ohio Department of Agriculture in Reynoldsburg. The theme of this years conference is: "Soil Fertility: Affecting Your Forages and Affecting Your Nutrition". The complete conference agenda may be found at: http://forages.osu.edu/education/OFGCannualmeeting.pdf Cost is $30 for OFGC members, and $40 for non-members. You may pre-register on-line at: http://www.smallfarminstitute.org/OFGCAnnualRegl.html. For more information, contact Leah Miller at Small Farm Institute at 740-545-6349.


Feedlot Inventories Continue to Shrink - Dr. Derrell S. Peel, OSU Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist

USDA's January Cattle on Feed report confirmed that feedlot placements in December continued at the slow pace of recent months. Despite a marketing level that was down 5 percent from one year ago, the 9 percent reduction in placements resulted in a January 1 feedlot inventory of 11.974 million head, 101 percent of the 2006 level.

Feedlot numbers continue to drop as a result of limited feeder supplies aggravated by sharply higher feed prices at the end of 2006. I believe tight feeder supplies are the main factor and will continue to be in the first half of 2007. After all, high corn prices don't cause feedlots to stop demanding feeder cattle as much as they change the kind of cattle that feedlots want to place…and the price they are willing to pay for them!

Looking ahead to next month there is no doubt that placements will continue to be small on a year to year basis. January placements will be further aggravated by the severe weather and horrible feedlot conditions that now exist. Feedlots are not interested in placing cattle in the midst of all the ice and mud. Although January marketings will also be down for the same reasons, the February 1 on-feed total should drop below year earlier levels.

Today's USDA reports may also provide some tantalizing clues into next week's annual Cattle report. The Slaughter report issued today showed a slight increase in heifer slaughter along with an 18 percent increase in beef cow slaughter in 2006 compared to 2005. The Cattle on Feed report showed that the January 1 inventory of heifers on feed was up 3.8 percent compared to last year. These numbers all suggest limited cyclical expansion. If my expectations are at all close, the report next week will show a very limited increased in the beef cow herd, the calf crop and estimated feeder cattle supplies for January 1.

Weekly Roberts Agricultural Commodity Market Report - Mike Roberts, Commodity Marketing Agent, Virginia Tech

LIVE CATTLE in Chicago (CME) closed mostly off on Monday. The only contact closing up was the FEB'07LC, closing at $90.600/cwt, up $0.375/cwt and up $0.350/cwt from last Monday's close. Last Friday's USDA Cattle on Feed report pushed deferreds lower a range of $0.10/cwt - $0.375/cwt with the APR'07LC closing off $0.175/cwt at $93.400/cwt. However, this is still higher than last week at this time by $1.025/cwt. The report showed larger than expected December placements and record on-feed supplies for January 1. Fund buying drove the FEB'07LC contract up on lower corn futures and worries about more cold weather in the forecast this week. The weather is expected to slow feedlot cattle performance again. Traders rolled short positions from the February to the April, also showing support for the lead month. Some June/April spreading was noted early on Monday. Cash cattle traded $0.50/cwt to $1.00/cwt lower on Monday in the 5-area average. USDA put the choice boxed beef cutout at $144.55/cwt, off $1.71/cwt and the lowest it's been since December 29. According the HedgersEdge.com, the average beef plant margin for Monday was estimated at $2.95/head, off $8.65/head from Friday and down $13.05/head from last week at this time. Cash sellers are still encouraged to push marketings if they can get them out of the pens at the right weights. It is still wise to consider protecting a portion of 3rd quarter '07 marketings at this time. Corn users should look for more pricing opportunities in near-term corn inputs now.

FEEDER CATTLE at the CME closed higher across the board on Monday. The MAR'07FC contract finished at $95.400/cwt, up $1.300/cwt and up $3.025/cwt from last week at this time. It looks like ground that was given up two weeks ago was taken back today. The APR'07FC contract finished up $1.075/cwt at $97.525/cwt. Gains in feeders were fueled by lower corn futures and reports of buying interest in big feedlots. New fund buying was triggered on the rally in feeders amid other technical support signs. Also, changes in the way that the feeder cattle index is now calculated include higher priced calves lifting the index. The CME Feeder Cattle Index for Jan. 25 was $94.11/cwt; down $0.38/cwt. Cash sellers are still encouraged to put a few more pounds on those feeder calves in order to take advantage of these prices. Hedgers may be wise to consider protecting a portion of 1st quarter '07 and 2nd quarter '07 marketings. Corn users should look for more pricing opportunities in near-term corn inputs now.


BEEF Cattle is a weekly publication of Ohio State University Extension in Fairfield County and the OSU Beef Team. Contributors include members of the Beef Team and other beef cattle specialists and economists from across the U.S.

All educational programs conducted by Ohio State University Extension are available to clientele on a nondiscriminatory basis without regard to race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, gender, age, disability or Vietnam-era veteran status. Keith L. Smith, Associate Vice President for Ag. Admin. and Director, OSU Extension. TDD No. 800-589-8292 (Ohio only) or 614-292-1868




Fairfield County Agriculture and Natural Resources


 

genes

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Messages
392
red said:
Joe Boy said:
Red,
See if they have an article on dumb bull calves.  I had one born yesterday in the snow.  He followed his mother up to my pickup in pasture and I fed all the cows some breeder cubes.  I checked him this morning and he was trying to nurse the fifth teat.  He had never nursed.  I had to haul them 30 miles to my corrals.  She had gotten so large she would not go into my chute.  I had to put a halter on her and tie her up and put a kicker on her and help dumbo to find lunch.  He was dumber than a stump.  Tonight he is happy.

joe Boy, I believe DL always had a theory on big dumb calves. Check with her on it. Glad he's doing better.
Red

I have a theory...and not to offend anyone, but it is Simmental and Charolais.  But to be fair, maybe it is just something to do with the borthweights of these particular Simmi's and Char's.  We have had a few out of bred cows we bought.  They are frustrating things to say the least.
 

red

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
7,850
Location
LaRue, Ohio
Ohio Beef Letter

Issue # 524

February 7, 2007
Winter Cold Stress on Cattle - Steve Boyles, OSU Beef Extension Specialist and Jeff McCutcheon, Knox County ANR Agent

Factors that create stress during the winter months are cold, wind, snow, rain and mud. The primary effect on animals is due to temperature. All these factors alter the maintenance energy requirement of livestock. Maintenance requirement can be defined, as the nutrients required for keeping an animal in a state of balance so that body substance is neither gained or lost. An interesting thing to note is that while energy requirements increase, protein requirements remain the same.

Some published sources contain nutrient requirements for beef cattle that include guidelines for adjusting rations during winter weather. Even without published sources, competent livestock producers realize the need for more feed during cold weather. Make sure that water is available. If water is not supplied, cattle will reduce feed intake.

Daily dry matter intake of beef cows with respect to temperature Temp, F <5 5-22 22-41 41-59 59-77 77-95 >95
intake, % change 1.16 1.07 1.05 1.03 1.02 0.90 0.65


The metabolic response to the stimulus of cold involves practically all the systems of the body. The striated muscles shiver, the heart beats faster, breathing becomes deeper, urine flow is increased and the sympathetic and pituitary controlled systems are activated so to elevate biological oxidations (energy expenditure or heat production) in all tissues. The result is an increase in the cow's requirements for energy.

Spring calving cows, and particularly heifers, in poor body condition are at risk for calving problems. The result may be lighter, weaker calves at birth, which can lead to a higher death loss, and more susceptibility to things such as scours.

Animals in poor condition before calving, provide inferior colostrum and lower milk production. This can lead to lighter weaning weights or fewer pounds of calf to sell. Females that are in less than desirable body condition at calving are slower to return to estrus. Therefore body condition at calving affects the current calf crop (milk production) and next year's calving date (rebreeding date).

In most years hay and stockpiled forage can adequately provide the needed nutrients, but it can very widely and should be tested to make sure it is adequate. OSU Extension has a fact sheet on Forage Testing, ANR-2-98, that describes the proper sampling techniques for various forages and explains the results. Your local Extension Office may also have a test probe and can help with submitting the sample to a laboratory.

There is a range of temperature where cattle are neither too hot nor too cold and their performance is optimal. This temperature range is called the thermoneutral zone. It is the temperature range where the fewest nutrients are needed to maintain bodily functions. For cattle the lower temperatures of the thermoneutral zone are shown in Table 1. All of the critical temperatures listed are effective ambient temperatures, which basically means the wind chill temperature is used if the cattle are not sheltered. The critical temperatures also take into consideration the insulating ability of the cattle, as shown by the change between a wet and dry coat.

Table 1. Estimated Lower Critical Temperatures for Beef Cattle * Coat Description Critical Temperature
Summer Coat or Wet 60 degrees F
Dry Fall Coat 45 degrees F
Dry Winter Coat 32 degrees F
Dry Heavy Winter Coat 19 degrees F


* From Browsen, R. & Ames D."Winter Stress in Beef Cattle" Cattle Producer's Library. CL760.

If we have a choice, snow is preferred to a cold rain. We lose what is called "air insulation" in cattle that get wet versus those that are out in the snow. The air pockets between hair fibers are a source of insulation. We lose this insulation when hair gets matted down in a cold rain. The result is that the Dry Winter Coat goes from having a critical temperature of 32 degrees F to about 59-60 degrees F.

From several studies it is estimated that for every one degree below the critical temperature a cow's energy requirement (TDN) increases 1 percent. It is also estimated that for every ten degrees below the critical temperature the digestibility of the ration decreases by 1 percent. This means that when the temperature drops below the critical temperature the cattle need to be fed better. It may be that more or better hay needs to be fed

Example of Effect of Temperature on Energy Needs Effective Temperature Extra TDN Needed Extra Hay Needed (lbs./cow/day) or, Extra Grain Needed, (lbs/cow/day)
50 F 0 0 0
+30 F 0 0 0
10 F 20% 3.5-4 lbs 2-2.5 lbs
-10 F 40% 7-8 lbs 4-6 lbs.


Besides cold weather effecting cattle performance producers have another thing to consider during winter, mud. It is less clear what effect mud has on a cow's energy requirements but it is estimated that it can increase the maintenance requirement from 7-30%. If cattle have to deal with mud then their ration should also be improved, to help avoid the consequences listed above.

Another tool producers have to help determine if what they are feeding is adequate, besides forage testing, is Body Condition Scoring (BCS). In the last trimester of pregnancy a cow should have a score of 5,6 or 7 on a 1-9 scale. If a cow is going down in BCS then the ration is inadequate and should be improved.

An additional source of information can be found in OSU Extension publication: Winter Supplementation of Beef Cows http://ohioline.osu.edu/as-fact/0001.html

EDITOR's NOTE: Over the past week, wind chill has probably burned as many calories as the raw cold in Ohio brood cow herds. The publication under the following link originates from our counterparts in Alberta, and offers valuable consideration for portable or temporary wind break fences: Portable Windbreak Fences

Steve Boyles offers the following article for consideration as a result of a potential situation for frostbite he experienced this past week.


During this cold weather, is at least your bull out of the wind? - Stephen Boyles, OSU Extension Beef Specialist

During cold and windy weather, producers need to be aware of the potential for scrotal frostbite in bulls. During normal winter conditions frostbite is not a common problem with breeding bulls, but prolonged exposure to extreme cold and wind increases the incidence of frostbite. If frostbite occurs this can cause bull infertility the next breeding season. It can occur in bulls that don't have adequate dry bedding or protection from the wind.

During cold weather, it is a good idea for bulls to have at least protection from the wind. Defects in sperm are proportional to the severity of the frostbite lesions, testicle adhesions and swelling of the testes. Older bulls, with lower hanging scrotums are more frequently adversely affected because they are not as able to pull their testicles up close to the body to keep them warm.

Blisters and scabs might be observed about three weeks after the frostbite happens. A scab may appear on the lower portion of the scrotum as healing occurs. Scabs will fall off in about a month, leaving reddish-pin scar tissue. However, the absence of a scab does not indicate that frostbite injury has not occurred.

Some protective measures such as windbreaks and good bedding during bad weather can help prevent testicle freezing. Make sure all the bulls can get out of the wind if you maintain multiple bulls. A wind break fence out in the lot might be considered if other bulls tend kick one of the other bulls out of the main wind protection area or barn. Bulls being trucked in cold weather should be protected, since traveling in an open truck creates a serious wind chill factor.

Evaluation of possible frostbite damage is best accomplished by a trained veterinarian performing a breeding soundness examination 45-60 days after the injury occurred. A semen evaluation performed earlier than this period will most likely indicate poor semen quality and could result in unnecessarily culling a bull that may produce satisfactory semen after healing has occurred.

Feeder Prices Drop - Will They Drop Further? - Brian Roe, Associate Professor AED Economics, Ohio State University, February 2007
Usually lightweight feeder cattle sell for the lowest prices in October and November, as the flood of spring-born calves saturate the market and drive down prices. Then, in late winter and spring, as the supply of lightweight feeder calves from the sparser summer and fall-born calf crops comes to market, prices perk up and hit their annual peak.

Unfortunately, for those contrarians - those fall calving herds who count on the late winter price spike to make going against the grain worth the trouble - this is an unusual year. At the beginning of January, lightweight feeder cattle were selling at Kentucky auctions for about $17 to $18 less per hundredweight than they were a year earlier and for about $10 to $12 less than they were during October of 2006. By early February, prices declined by another $4 to $5 and my projections suggest that prices will continue to decline by another $5 to $10 over the next couple of months.

The explanation for the price decline has several obvious reasons - high corn prices, unfavorable western grazing conditions, and slow movement of cattle into and out of western feedlots due to the fury of winter in the plains. The swelling of corn prices pre-date the winter weather issues, and are important driver of recent feeder cattle price trends. With corn prices soaring, lightweight feeder cattle become like Hummer's during an energy crisis - too expensive to fill up. In case you don't remember, during 1996, when corn averaged $3.60 and spiked near $5.00 per bushel, 300-400 pound feeder cattle sold for an average of $57/cwt for the year.

The good news is that, despite futures prices for corn being around $4 for the next year, 300-400 pound feeder steers are still trading around $115, which is higher than any price observed prior to 2005. This is considerably lower than the last two years, however, and the price will likely decline further. Why is it likely to decline? Well, lightweight feeders are still selling at a considerable price premium compared to heavier feeders. For Kentucky auction steers, the difference in price between the light (300-400#) and heavy (700-800#) cattle still stands at about $30. In 1995, when corn averaged $2.80, the premium for lightweights shrunk to $16 and in 1996, when corn averaged $3.60, the premium was a mere $4. Since corn prices began to soar last fall, the price premium has not shrunk at all.

This suggests that the premium for lightweight calves will shrink during the next year. There are two ways the premium could shrink. The price of heavier feeders could increase (don't hold your breath) or, more likely, the price of lighter feeders will continue to drop. If fall calving operations have calves ready for market, there may still be a window to market these in the next month before lightweight prices plunge too much further. Otherwise operators have to consider if they can add weight to these calves in a more cost effective way than can the back grounders or feedlots that are their typical buyers. If operators have their own corn, they may consider finishing these animals themselves as the prices for fed cattle have remained quite strong. Given the high price of corn, however, these operators need to put pencil to paper to determine if their scarce corn will fetch more marketed through cattle or through the ethanol plant.

Fed cattle markets remain strong, and I continue to worry that futures prices for the April and June contracts paint too rosy of a picture. This market has been moved greatly by the troubling weather events that have mired western feedlots. Undoubtedly this will have a negative impact of the number and weight of cattle emerging from the west. However, I still believe that markets have over-reacted. For example, the April contract recent traded around $94.50. My calculations suggest that, if demand for finished cattle is exactly as strong as last year, the total supply of beef in April (# head times carcass weight) would have to be 8% below last year.

Is an 8% decline in April supplies in the cards? USDA projects supply in the April-June quarter to be 1.5% higher than last year, though this estimate may not take into account the weather events of the last 4 weeks. Nonetheless, feedlot inventories for January were at record levels as were the number of cattle on feed for more the 120 days. Even if the recent weather events move supply from a projection of +1.5% to -5%, I still see prices to be about $5 too high if demand is unchanged from last year. A similar situation holds for June - USDA projects supply to +1.5%. In order for June prices to meet the $91 futures prices recently traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, the supply would have to drop to a 5% decrease if demand is unchanged from last year. Needless to say, I see these recent prices as a good opportunity to hedge feedlot sales for the spring. Furthermore, I see no such undue optimism in the August, October or December futures prices.


Forage Focus: Benefits of Frost Seeding Legumes - Curt Stivison, Fairfield County Soil and Water Engineering Technician
Adding legumes to hay and pasture fields brings at least four benefits and frost seeding is a simple, but effective method. Broadcasting legume seed on the soil surface as it 'honeycombs' in late winter (February 15 to March 15) allows the seeds to become covered as the soil freezes and thaws.

1) Higher yields: The total yield of forage per acre is increased. For example, a study conducted at Lexington, Kentucky compared renovating a fescue pasture using red clover to fertilizing the grass with nitrogen. In this study, adding 6 pounds of red clover seed to a fescue pasture produced higher yields than fescue fertilized with up to 180 lb N/ac.

2) Improved quality: Adding legumes to grass fields improves forage quality over grass alone. This added quality includes increases in palatability, intake, digestibility, and nutrient content. The result is improved animal performance. Research has shown that legumes improve animal growth rates, reproductive efficiency, and milk production.

3) Nitrogen fixation: Legumes get their nitrogen needs from symbiotic bacteria that live in "knots" (nodules) on their roots. These bacteria are added when the legume seed is inoculated. This "fixed" nitrogen provides the nitrogen needed by the legumes and also grasses growing with them. Alfalfa usually fixes the most, between 200 and 300 pounds/acre/year, while annual lespedeza is on the low side with about 75 pounds. Red clovers can fix 100 to 200 pounds of nitrogen/acre/year. With nitrogen cost at 40 cents a pound that equals 40 to 80 dollars an acre benefit in nitrogen alone. At the recommended seeding rates of 6 to 12 pounds (depending on conditions) and a cost of 2 dollars a pound, that equals 12 to 24 dollars.

4) More summer growth: Most of the growth of cool-season grasses occurs during the spring and fall. Legumes make more growth during the summer months than cool-season grasses. Growing grasses and legumes together improves the seasonal distribution of forages and provides more growth during summer.

Controlling grass and weed competition in a new seeding is critical. Many attempts at renovation have failed simply because grass was allowed to grow and reduce the light, nutrients, and water available to the young legume plants. The grass must be kept short by grazing or mowing until the new legume plants are 3 to 4 inches tall. Stop grazing if the animals begin biting off the young legume leaves. Grazing and mowing should be stopped for several weeks to allow the legumes to become well established. After this, the field should be mowed or grazed on a schedule that will help keep the particular legumes used in good condition. A rotational grazing system helps keep legumes in the stand longer.

BEEF Cattle is a weekly publication of Ohio State University Extension in Fairfield County and the OSU Beef Team. Contributors include members of the Beef Team and other beef cattle specialists and economists from across the U.S.

All educational programs conducted by Ohio State University Extension are available to clientele on a nondiscriminatory basis without regard to race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, gender, age, disability or Vietnam-era veteran status. Keith L. Smith, Associate Vice President for Ag. Admin. and Director, OSU Extension. TDD No. 800-589-8292 (Ohio only) or 614-292-1868

Fairfield County Agriculture and Natural Resources


 
Top